Begotten before all ages

[dean198]

This is particularly for Paidion - was the Son eternally begotten, or begotten before creation? Was there a time when the Son was not?

[Paidion]

The historic Christian view was that the Son was begotten "before all ages". Even the Trinitarians of 325 A.D. affirmed that He was "begotten not created".

Later Trinitarians said that He was "eternally begotten". Since this concept was not understood, and appears to be meaningless, the whole idea of the begetting of the Son as an act of God was forgotten. Thus in our day, when the Scriptures speak of the begetting of the Son or the "only-begotten Son", people think that this refers to His having been begotten in the womb of Mary. As a young man, I, myself, thought so.

I now think this begetting of the Son "before all ages" was a begetting at the beginning of time. Second century Christians called this begetting "the first of God's acts".

Since time didn't exist "before" the begetting of the Son (there was no "before"), then it is not the case that "there was a time when the Son was not", as Arius affirmed. There was no such time. For there was no "before".

[darinhouston]

I now think this begetting of the Son "before all ages" was a begetting at the beginning of time.

Not to get too metaphysical or philosophical, but why do you think so (it sounds as if you have a presupposition that there was a beginning to time). Surely God existed "before" time began, yet I realize the dilemma of the concept of "before" requiring the reality of "time." I think this line of inquiry really turns on "perspective" (from what I recall of Einstein's view of general relativity). Time could "not exist" from our perspective yet exist from God's perspective (in a different dimensional reality), but I would think you run into a problem with such a theory as to Christ's begetting. Assuming it's before "Creation," (which I do) with this view of time, time couldn't exist at that time since Creation (our dimensional reality) hadn't happened "yet."

My head hurts thinking about these things, and much of our present understanding of time wasn't known at the time of any of the Creeds.

[Paidion]

My head hurts thinking about these things

That may be due to the fact that believing that there was time before time began is a contradiction.

I began to believe in the beginning of time when I began to see "the beginning" stated in Gen 1:1 as well as John 1:1 as the beginning of time rather than the beginning of creation. When we understand that there was an actual beginning to time and thus no "before", this understanding does pose some intellectual problems for us, which we may not be able to solve. But the problems are not of a logically contradictory nature such as we have when we believe there is an infinite regression of time into the past.

The statement "God existed before the beginning of time" is thus a meaningless statement unless we understand "the beginning of time" in an unusual sense, that is, of not really being the beginning of time since there would have been events prior to that "beginning". For if God had existed prior to that beginning, was He doing nothing. Was He not even thinking or planning? If He was, then there were mental events prior to this "beginning". If there were events of any kind, then this "beginning" was not a true beginning of time. I believe in a true beginning of time.

I believe that at the beginning of time God was there. He was not begotten or created. Is that hard to believe? We may ask, "Why was He there?" since in our experience anything that exists must have an explanation. Is it easier to believe that God existed in "eternity past"? I find it much more incomprehensible to believe that God existed for an infinite amount of time doing nothing.

[darinhouston]

Nicely put, Paidion, but I just can't conceive of a time before time. That doesn't mean it's possible - it's just beyond my intellect.

[Paidion]

Why do you say "but", Darin? I can't conceive of "a time before time" either! That's the very point I have been trying to make. If there is a beginning to time (and I believe there is), then there was no "before". So if there really was no "before", then how could ANYTHING exist "before"? To say that it did is meaningless.

We have difficulty with the concept of time having had a beginning since our education has somehow gotten us to believe in an infinite regression of time into the past. I once believed it too, but in doing so, I was confronted with several problems which seem contradictory. In discarding the idea, I still have problems and questions, but encounter no contradictions.

[darinhouston]

Why do you say "but", Darin? I can't conceive of "a time before time" either! That's the very point I have been trying to make. If there is a beginning to time (and I believe there is), then there was no "before". So if there really was no "before", then how could ANYTHING exist "before"? To say that it did is meaningless.

We have difficulty with the concept of time having had a beginning since our education has somehow gotten us to believe in an infinite regression of time into the past. I once believed it too, but in doing so, I was confronted with several problems which seem contradictory. In discarding the idea, I still have problems and questions, but encounter no contradictions.

I hear ya, but I can't conceive of the concept of "nothing" existing with only God "being" either.

[NORTH]

.

[Paidion]

I hear ya, but I can't conceive of the concept of "nothing" existing with only God "being" either.

I don't think He ever did. For the act of His begetting of His only-begotten Son marked the Beginning of time. So there was no time at which the Son did not exist. He was always with the Father since the Beginning, and thus there was no time at which the Father existed without Him. Yet the Father was unbegotten.

Someone with great insight once wrote:

The Father was not temporally prior to the Son, but was causally prior.

I never forgot that succinct way of expressing it.

[joel]

Has anyone ever heard the theory that God's method of accomplishing :
"Cursed is the ground for your sake; " Gen 3:17
was by applying time ? Consider at that point all things begin to age and decay.

As far as "begotten" - I had a prof explain it this way (if I can remember):
God created man - Man begets man and does not create man.
God created cows - Cows beget cows and cows do not create cows.
God created large mouth bass - Large mouth bass beget large mouth bass they do not create large mouth bass.
God does not create God - God (the Father) begets God (the Son) (the Holy Spirit) - God is eternal.

Begotten would support that the Son is eternal thus never non-existent.

It is a brain drainer to contemplate ...
--joel